User talk:Tiggerjay
 | Tiggerjay is busy traveling, but has returned from an extended wiki-break. |  |
|
|
Revert
[edit]Sorry if this was a revert .. I had not thought it such (wasn't it an addition of material that had never been in the article?) .. so was confused by its deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_pogrom_in_Amsterdam&diff=prev&oldid=1256120479 184.153.21.19 (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here is the situation, that edit was not because you were reverting but you are continuing to contribute to the article while having a clear disagreement with another editor. Your continued edits are only going to result in the other editor likely disagreeing and revering or changing your edits, and so on. Furthermore, an unsourced changes does not help. Tommy made a change here from 10 to 12 injured.... without citing a source. then you change it back to 10 without a source. That is a classic example of edit warring, especially when you add that to your fighting over specific word choices, etc. Since you cannot play nice, then you shouldn't be directly editing the article without talking about it first on the article talk page. TiggerJay (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies. First, the ref is in the text. I had thought that - as with the lede - when the ref is in the article itself we need not have it in the infobox. We see this all over the project, where dates of birth, places of birth, schools, dates of death, titles, political parties, and all manner of line items in infoboxes have refs in the text. But not in the infobox. As in the good article Winston Churchill - which has not one ref in the infobox.
- Second, I didn't that in an earlier version of the article someone - not me - had put 10 in the infobox. So I didn't realize I was making a revert. Now that you bring my attention to it, I see some other editor had put 10 in the infobox--with an RS ref. Interestingly, this editor, incorrectly labeling his edit "additions," had deleted the RS ref, left the information without any ref, and changed it to 12. Had I been aware of all that I would have brought that to his attention on his talk page, along with the other points I raised there with him, to no avail. But now that I see this was an inadvertent revert (albeit, to someone else's edit, and not as I presumed just a synchronization edit with the RS-reff'd text), I apologize for that. I still don't know that the additions of text were reverts though - simply positive additions to the article that are not meant to revert anything in the article by any means, and thus I would have thought not the subject of the deep concern that I have not to engage in edit warring here. Thanks. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand your confusion and that is okay. Here is how you move forward, at least for right now, wait 24-hours before directly editing the article. If you find yourself making a change, and then someone undoes that change, DO NOT change it back. Instead, discuss it on the talk page. If they are not bringing it to the talk page, let me know and I'll try to help. With regards to articles where there are other editors who have a different perspective, simply do not engage them on the main article space. That is not where we work out which side is right on a situation. A good article to read is WP:BRD TiggerJay (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's sensible. As you can tell from his talk page, I wasn't just reverting. And opening up efforts - all ignored there - to discuss it on his talk page. But I was also inviting other editors who had edited the parallel page, etc., to follow what was happening. I wouldn't have been so troubled except that I thought that if I write on Wikipedia that someone is a racist rioter - and have no RS refs - that's an obvious no-no. And obvious no-no's are not the stuff of arguing ten vs 12. But are quite bad for Wikipedia to be saying to the world. Especially when readers may be upset to the point of violence. But I'm happy that the article now has other eyes. A glance at his former edits btw suggest that these are not his first edits that might raise eyebrows. And his insistence on inputting "racist rioters" without RS refs, repeatedly, even when warned, does make me wonder about his editing just a bit. And one last point .. if A has a WP article label people "racist rioters" and does so without RS refs .. even after it being brought to their attention .. I wonder whether that is perhaps something other than a "different perspective." It's a dangerous intentional flouting of wp rules. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it is very difficult to assume good faith in people that we disagree with. One persons ignorance is another persons flouting. TiggerJay (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Something else I ran across again for the first time in a long time is a very short essay that contains some good advice, but also understand that it is not policy or a rule: [WP:MORALIZE] TiggerJay (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's sensible. As you can tell from his talk page, I wasn't just reverting. And opening up efforts - all ignored there - to discuss it on his talk page. But I was also inviting other editors who had edited the parallel page, etc., to follow what was happening. I wouldn't have been so troubled except that I thought that if I write on Wikipedia that someone is a racist rioter - and have no RS refs - that's an obvious no-no. And obvious no-no's are not the stuff of arguing ten vs 12. But are quite bad for Wikipedia to be saying to the world. Especially when readers may be upset to the point of violence. But I'm happy that the article now has other eyes. A glance at his former edits btw suggest that these are not his first edits that might raise eyebrows. And his insistence on inputting "racist rioters" without RS refs, repeatedly, even when warned, does make me wonder about his editing just a bit. And one last point .. if A has a WP article label people "racist rioters" and does so without RS refs .. even after it being brought to their attention .. I wonder whether that is perhaps something other than a "different perspective." It's a dangerous intentional flouting of wp rules. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand your confusion and that is okay. Here is how you move forward, at least for right now, wait 24-hours before directly editing the article. If you find yourself making a change, and then someone undoes that change, DO NOT change it back. Instead, discuss it on the talk page. If they are not bringing it to the talk page, let me know and I'll try to help. With regards to articles where there are other editors who have a different perspective, simply do not engage them on the main article space. That is not where we work out which side is right on a situation. A good article to read is WP:BRD TiggerJay (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Second, I didn't that in an earlier version of the article someone - not me - had put 10 in the infobox. So I didn't realize I was making a revert. Now that you bring my attention to it, I see some other editor had put 10 in the infobox--with an RS ref. Interestingly, this editor, incorrectly labeling his edit "additions," had deleted the RS ref, left the information without any ref, and changed it to 12. Had I been aware of all that I would have brought that to his attention on his talk page, along with the other points I raised there with him, to no avail. But now that I see this was an inadvertent revert (albeit, to someone else's edit, and not as I presumed just a synchronization edit with the RS-reff'd text), I apologize for that. I still don't know that the additions of text were reverts though - simply positive additions to the article that are not meant to revert anything in the article by any means, and thus I would have thought not the subject of the deep concern that I have not to engage in edit warring here. Thanks. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you!
[edit]Thanks for pinging me and assuming that I haven't seen the discussion which indeed is the case. I have created the article at 03:42, 8 November 2024. I have also added it to the main page. And then a much smaller stab was created at 03:48, 8 November 2024. Then under the reason of someone not liking the name (which has more than enough sources) it is now tried to be deleted with the entire history of edits. I have created a similar article in ruwiki and there the name with pogrom stayed as is. In ruwiki we have a rule in such cases to have merge of the history of edits which I usually do as an admin and then if needed to change the name. Will it be in accordance with the enwiki rules and if so where can I submit a request to merge the history please? Thanks again for you help. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely happy to help! I know that there are a lot of strong opinions and biases on articles like this. As you can see above in my talk page there you'll see interactions with another user regarding that page. Each language of Wikipedia has different policies and what they find acceptable, verifiable or unbiased. Beyond simply different cultural sensitivities, there is also the fact that some have just been around longer and are more active, which has caused more rules, policies, essays and approaches to be developed further than other projects. That isn't to suggest one is necessarily more correct, but rather, that there are differences, and one well established precedent is that simply because an article exists on a different language project, does not automatically mean that it fits the criteria on en.wiki. It appears that in that discussion that I ping'd you at that an uninvolved editor decided that there was consensus to merge it into November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. First there is the discussion you already participated in, regarding the WP:RfD that is a good place to start given that a discussion is already going on that overlaps with other options that are available. Let that process play out first, no need to have multiple different attempts to cure this problem going simultaneously. TiggerJay (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Something else I ran across again for the first time in a long time is a very short essay that contains some good advice, but also understand that it is not policy or a rule: [WP:MORALIZE] TiggerJay (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)